On Mon, Mar 24, 2008 at 1:01 PM, Tobias Powalowski wrote:

Am Montag, 24. März 2008 schrieb Dan McGee:

...

On Mon, Mar 24, 2008 at 12:18 PM, Tobias Powalowski wrote:

...

Hi kernel bump release for both arches in testing, please signoff added atheros l2 network adapter support (used in eee pcs)

What was wrong with AUR for this? Why on earth do we keep adding MORE PATCHES!? more patches are so cool, you know ;) i hope one day you get new hardware and you are not able to get your network working, then i want to hear you scream.

I have an Eee, I managed to pull off an FTP install just fine. I compiled the driver by hand, just as has always been the case for out-of-tree driver with Arch if there is not already a separate package for it. I did this 22 months ago for my zd1211 wireless stick before it was in the mainline kernel, and I had *0 days of desktop linux experience* at that time (on my own machine). 0 days. And now we bend over backwards for someone needing a driver? Ugh. I thought April fools and the rename to Newb Linux wasn't for another week. -Dan

On Mon, Mar 24, 2008 at 1:08 PM, Dan McGee wrote:

...

On Mon, Mar 24, 2008 at 1:01 PM, Tobias Powalowski wrote:

...

Am Montag, 24. März 2008 schrieb Dan McGee:

...

On Mon, Mar 24, 2008 at 12:18 PM, Tobias Powalowski wrote:

...

Hi kernel bump release for both arches in testing, please signoff added atheros l2 network adapter support (used in eee pcs)

What was wrong with AUR for this? Why on earth do we keep adding MORE PATCHES!?

more patches are so cool, you know ;) i hope one day you get new hardware and you are not able to get your network working, then i want to hear you scream.

I have an Eee, I managed to pull off an FTP install just fine.

I compiled the driver by hand, just as has always been the case for out-of-tree driver with Arch if there is not already a separate package for it.

I did this 22 months ago for my zd1211 wireless stick before it was in the mainline kernel, and I had *0 days of desktop linux experience* at that time (on my own machine). 0 days. And now we bend over backwards for someone needing a driver? Ugh. I thought April fools and the rename to Newb Linux wasn't for another week.

I just want to say that I'm frustrated, so sorry for unleashing here- I mean what I say, but am really not trying to start some back and forth war that we aren't going to be able to make a decision on.

However: 1) Did we even have a bug report for adding atl2? I saw a forum thread that suggested building it from the AUR, which seemed like a valid solution. Why do we always need bugreports? I got the request on the 2008.03 ISO thread and read the patch site and

Am Montag, 24. März 2008 schrieb Dan McGee: thought it's worth to add it.

2) atl2 is never going to make it upstream- I thought this was the criteria for adding a patch. Instead, an atlx driver is going to take the place of atl1/atl2. When did we change our patch inclusion criteria? Probably it get replaced by such a driver in the future but not now in the .24 series and not in the .25 series.

3) You tell me in one thread that libarchive is too late, and two minutes later I see there is a new kernel that was probably made for the ISO. This confuses me.

The communication and transparency here has had a HUGE breakdown. If you would read the mail from yesterday evening there you should see what i said needs to be signed off and moved for ISO creation/announcement and there was no talk about libarchive. glibc had a weird bug and klibc-kbd wrong depends that triggers a recreation, along with this it was possible to add a new kernel package which supports also atl2 network cards, so where is your problem? Users are happy with the new ISOs, just read the Forum thread about it.

greetings tpowa -- Tobias Powalowski Archlinux Developer & Package Maintainer (tpowa) http://www.archlinux.org tpowa@archlinux.org

Am Montag, 24. März 2008 schrieb Simo Leone:

On Mon, Mar 24, 2008 at 07:28:13PM +0100, Tobias Powalowski wrote:

...

Users are happy with the new ISOs, just read the Forum thread about it.

You know what. I don't care if the users are happy with the new ISOs. That's right, I finally said it. _I DON'T CARE_

I don't care because _I_ am not happy with them. As someone who can see that from a technological standpoint, it's a marvel that they even work, that is, as a software developer, I'm ashamed to be associated with such a shoddy product.

I've offered alternatives, hell I've spent a lot of time offering alternatives, built on more solid software enginerring principles than "Users are Happy", but no one around here, save Dan and Aaron, who just happen to be code contributors, seems to give a damn. What's up with that?

You never started to create ISOs nor you wanted to create them. This topic here is about kernel26 signoff and i would be fine if people would stay on topic. greetings tpowa -- Tobias Powalowski Archlinux Developer & Package Maintainer (tpowa) http://www.archlinux.org tpowa@archlinux.org

2008/3/26, Tobias Powalowski :

Am Montag, 24. März 2008 schrieb Tobias Powalowski:

...

Am Montag, 24. März 2008 schrieb Simo Leone:

...

On Mon, Mar 24, 2008 at 07:28:13PM +0100, Tobias Powalowski wrote:

...

Users are happy with the new ISOs, just read the Forum thread about it.

You know what. I don't care if the users are happy with the new ISOs. That's right, I finally said it. _I DON'T CARE_

I don't care because _I_ am not happy with them. As someone who can see that from a technological standpoint, it's a marvel that they even work, that is, as a software developer, I'm ashamed to be associated with such a shoddy product.

I've offered alternatives, hell I've spent a lot of time offering alternatives, built on more solid software enginerring principles than "Users are Happy", but no one around here, save Dan and Aaron, who just happen to be code contributors, seems to give a damn. What's up with that?

You never started to create ISOs nor you wanted to create them. This topic here is about kernel26 signoff and i would be fine if people would stay on topic. greetings tpowa

can we start signoff for this now? To clarify, the atl2 patch just adds an additional network modules which will be merged later in the kernel tree beyond the .25 series. when the new written atlx driver will be accepted by the kernel devs.

Signed off (i686). -- Roman Kyrylych (Роман Кирилич)

On Wed, Mar 26, 2008 at 3:40 AM, Pierre Schmitz wrote:

Am Mittwoch, 26. März 2008 08:38:27 schrieb Tobias Powalowski:

...

can we start signoff for this now?

signed-off (both arches)

No signoff from me, this breaks our agreed kernel patching policy. [1] -Dan [1] Start of thread: http://archlinux.org/pipermail/arch-dev-public/2007-November/003055.html Last message with results: http://archlinux.org/pipermail/arch-dev-public/2007-November/003135.html Other reference wrt minor version patches: http://archlinux.org/pipermail/arch-dev-public/2007-December/003782.html

On Mon, 24 Mar 2008, Tobias Powalowski wrote:

Am Montag, 24. März 2008 schrieb Simo Leone:

...

On Mon, Mar 24, 2008 at 07:28:13PM +0100, Tobias Powalowski wrote:

...

Users are happy with the new ISOs, just read the Forum thread about it.

You know what. I don't care if the users are happy with the new ISOs. That's right, I finally said it. _I DON'T CARE_

I don't care because _I_ am not happy with them. As someone who can see that from a technological standpoint, it's a marvel that they even work, that is, as a software developer, I'm ashamed to be associated with such a shoddy product.

I've offered alternatives, hell I've spent a lot of time offering alternatives, built on more solid software enginerring principles than "Users are Happy", but no one around here, save Dan and Aaron, who just happen to be code contributors, seems to give a damn. What's up with that?

You never started to create ISOs nor you wanted to create them. This topic here is about kernel26 signoff and i would be fine if people would stay on topic. greetings tpowa

It works fine on i686 here so signing off for i686. For x86_64, it booted fine but I received these error messages in my terminal while building a package: Message from syslogd@ovide at Tue Mar 25 23:06:08 2008 ... ovide kernel: Oops: 0000 [1] PREEMPT SMP Message from syslogd@ovide at Tue Mar 25 23:06:08 2008 ... ovide kernel: CR2: 0000000000001128 Message from syslogd@ovide at Tue Mar 25 23:13:25 2008 ... ovide kernel: Oops: 0000 [2] PREEMPT SMP In the dmesg trace, there was mention of unionfs. I don't have the trace anymore because the system froze (black screen, had to reset manually) when I tried to build the same package which I had previously interrupted as it seemed to have stalled. On reboot, dmesg showed message of unused inodes, probably from the journal, and since then I am having continual 100+MB disk IO and 20% CPU use from the kernel raid related process. Downgrading kernel didn't fixed that so I guess my raid array has some problems (update: I ckecked my dmesg more carefully and it's definitely raid issue). I don't know if the HD problem is the cause or result of the kernel/system freeze. OT: does anyone has experience with raid arrays? Let me know if you know how to fix that so I won't need to google. Snippet from dmesg (which seems that it's currently syncing itself so I think I just need to wait and it'll fix itself on his own. I definitely need to RTFM about raid ;) : md: bind<sda1> md: bind<sdb1> md: bind<sdc1> md: raid1 personality registered for level 1 raid1: raid set md0 active with 3 out of 3 mirrors md: bind<sda2> md: bind<sdb2> md: bind<sdc2> raid1: raid set md1 active with 3 out of 3 mirrors md: bind<sda3> md: bind<sdb3> md: bind<sdc3> md: md2: raid array is not clean -- starting background reconstruction xor: automatically using best checksumming function: generic_sse generic_sse: 7942.800 MB/sec xor: using function: generic_sse (7942.800 MB/sec) async_tx: api initialized (async) raid6: int64x1 2851 MB/s raid6: int64x2 3500 MB/s raid6: int64x4 3576 MB/s raid6: int64x8 2800 MB/s raid6: sse2x1 3919 MB/s raid6: sse2x2 5225 MB/s raid6: sse2x4 5383 MB/s raid6: using algorithm sse2x4 (5383 MB/s) md: raid6 personality registered for level 6 md: raid5 personality registered for level 5 md: raid4 personality registered for level 4 raid5: device sdc3 operational as raid disk 2 raid5: device sdb3 operational as raid disk 1 raid5: device sda3 operational as raid disk 0 raid5: allocated 3226kB for md2 raid5: raid level 5 set md2 active with 3 out of 3 devices, algorithm 2 RAID5 conf printout: --- rd:3 wd:3 disk 0, o:1, dev:sda3 disk 1, o:1, dev:sdb3 disk 2, o:1, dev:sdc3 md: resync of RAID array md2 md: minimum _guaranteed_ speed: 1000 KB/sec/disk. md: using maximum available idle IO bandwidth (but not more than 200000 KB/sec) for resync. md: using 128k window, over a total of 243015168 blocks. Thanks, Eric -- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by MailScanner, and is believed to be clean.